evaluation of the mentoring for excluded groups and networks …stats.learningandwork.org.uk/megan...

Evaluation of the Mentoring

for Excluded Groups and

Networks (MEGAN) European

Project: Literature Review

Sarah Foster and Lydia Finnegan

August 2014

This project has been funded with support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013). For more information see http://ec.europa.eu/progress

The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/progress

Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European


2

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3

Review purpose ............................................................................................... 3

What is mentoring? .......................................................................................... 3

Furthering the evidence .................................................................................... 4

2 Understanding the target groups............................................................... 6

3 The effectiveness and outcomes of mentoring .......................................... 8

Findings from the MOMIE evidence review ......................................................... 8

The latest findings on the effectiveness and outcomes of mentoring ................... 9

4 Important factors and conditions for effective mentoring ...................... 12

Characteristics of mentees .............................................................................. 12

Characteristics of mentors .............................................................................. 12

Mentor and mentee matching ......................................................................... 13

Support, training and supervision for mentors .................................................. 14

Goal setting ................................................................................................... 14

Mentoring duration and intensity ..................................................................... 15

Mentoring relationship .................................................................................... 16

The structure of mentoring programmes ......................................................... 17

Integration of mentoring with other support .................................................... 17

5 Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 19

Recommendations for mentoring .................................................................... 19

References ...................................................................................................... 21

Appendix – Research Protocol ........................................................................ 24



3

1 Introduction

1.1 This paper represents a review of existing evidence on the effectiveness of

mentoring in terms of promoting social inclusion of vulnerable groups. It has

been produced to support the EU-funded PROGRESS1 project Mentoring for

Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN).

1.2 MEGAN is a mentoring project with an evaluation component, financed by

the European Social Fund’s Progress funding stream. The MEGAN project

team’s interest area is that of supporting disadvantaged groups, including

Roma young people (Hungary), people living in social and economic

disadvantage, depending on State Benefits/Minimum Income (Portugal) and

offenders on probation, including migrant offenders (UK). MEGAN will deliver

mentoring to participants in each country for at least six months and

measure what impact this has on the mentees’ lives in a number of key

areas2. MEGAN is hoping to build on its predecessor project, Models of

Mentoring for Inclusion and Employment (MOMIE).

Review purpose

1.3 The purpose of this review is to build on the evidence gathered for the

MOMIE project (Finnegan et al, 2010) which identified critical success factors

for mentoring programmes.

What is mentoring?

1.4 Before proceeding with the review, it is worth clarifying how mentoring has

been defined. This review, like the 2010 review completed for the MOMIE

project, has adopted Tolan et al’s (2008) definition, which described

mentoring as having the following four characteristics:

Interaction between two individuals over an extended period of time.

1 Programme for Employment and Solidarity 2007 - 2013, DG Employment, Social Affairs

and Inclusion (http://ec.europa.eu/progress)

2 The MEGAN project is measuring changes in work education and training, recidivism, drug

and alcohol use, money management, relationships, mental well being, collaborating with others, planning.

http://ec.europa.eu/progress



4

Inequality of experience, knowledge, or power between the mentor

and mentee (recipient), with the mentor possessing the greater share.

The mentee is in a position to imitate and benefit from the knowledge,

skill, ability, or experience of the mentor.

The absence of the role inequality that typifies other helping

relationships and is marked by professional training, certification, or

predetermined status differences such as parent-child or teacher-

student relationships.

Furthering the evidence

1.5 The literature has not moved a long way between MOMIE being started in

spring 2010 and MEGAN, which began in autumn 2012. This is partly due to

this being a short time frame. Commitment, understanding and buy-in is

needed to facilitate robust evaluation. The other reason for the relatively

slow build up of evidence is due to the definitional difficulties and multiple

variables. We are often unable to compare mentoring programmes as we

are not usually comparing like with like. Attribution of outcomes is

problematic; it is difficult to assign a value to how much mentoring may

have helped a person in a particular area when a mentee might be accessing

other interventions alongside mentoring (e.g. DuBois et al, 2002; Jolliffe and

Farrington, 2007). This also applies to the use of a control group, as in the

case of MEGAN, where it is difficult to control or establish what external help

the control group might be receiving which could have an effect on the

results.

1.6 Despite the challenges in producing good quality reliable research in the field

of mentoring, a number of bodies have been set up recently to try to build

the research base, with the strategic aim of pushing for more evidenced

based policy. In the US, Portland State University set up the ‘Center for

Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research’ in 20103, which conducts research on

mentoring for youth, college students, employees and parents. Also in the

US, the University of Massachusetts set up ‘The Center for Evidence-Based

Mentoring’ in 20114. The goal of this centre is to advance both the

production and uptake of evidence-based practice in the field of youth

mentoring. Both centres are very active in evaluating mentoring

3 See http://www.pdx.edu/mentoring-research/ 4 See http://www.umbmentoring.org/

http://www.pdx.edu/mentoring-research/

http://www.umbmentoring.org/



5

programmes and coordinating conferences where researchers in the field are

brought together to discuss findings. The centres are also active in driving

mentoring improvement through the dissemination of quality standards and

toolkits. The Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring publication

(MENTOR, 2009a) includes six evidence-based mentoring standards

addressing mentor and mentee recruitment, screening, training, matching,

monitoring and support, and closure. MENTOR have also published a toolkit

specifically focused on mentoring immigrant and refugee youth (2009b). In

the UK the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation5 provides a similar role

and draws together mentoring research and best practice.

1.7 For this review, electronic databases were searched to identify peer-

reviewed academic articles and relevant websites. As the MOMIE review

was conducted in 2010, the search was originally limited to research

published from 2010 onwards, but later widened to research published from

2005 onwards in recognition of the wider focus of this review. International

research was sought, though the searches were restricted to research

published in English. The predominance of UK, US and Australian mentoring

scheme research in this review is a reflection of where the majority of the

research has been produced and not due to the search being restricted to

these countries. Further details of the research protocol can be found in the

appendix.

5 See http://www.mandbf.org/

http://www.mandbf.org/



6

2 Understanding the target groups

2.1 The target groups forming the MEGAN project have remained the same as

they were for the MOMIE project; Roma young people (Hungary), offenders

on probation (UK) and people living in social and economic disadvantage,

depending on State Benefits/Minimum Income (Portugal). However, a new

group has been introduced within the offender cohort; migrant offenders on

probation in London. It is therefore important to understand the unique

issues facing migrants, including difficulties they have in adjusting to their

new environment, the discrimination they sometimes encounter and how

some come into contact with the criminal justice system.

2.2 A paper produced by NACRO (2010) highlighted that foreign national

prisoners can experience a range of issues that go beyond those affecting

the general offender population:

Mental health and welfare problems (such as isolation, separation from

family, trauma and loss, particularly if they are seeking refuge or

asylum).

A lack of access to information about their current experience.

A lack of legal and immigration advice.

Language barriers and a shortage of translation facilities.

A period of being held in bureaucratic limbo following the serving of

their sentence and prior to deportation.

Limited preparation for release and insufficient access to resettlement

programmes.

A fear of return to their home country fuelled either by persecution in

that country or by other reasons.

2.3 Certain sections of the media have blurred the boundaries between criminal

and foreign national and between offender and asylum seeker. Under the

Immigration and Asylum Act 2004, it became an offence to enter the UK

without a passport or having destroyed travel documents. There has been a

gradual criminalisation of transgressions that were previously considered

solely related to immigration.



7

2.4 This coexists alongside continued discrimination which often goes under the

political and media radars. Exacerbated by the tough economic climate, it is

a reality in which foreign nationals are often presumed to be taking jobs:

“Racism is changing in the UK. If the crude forms of racism of industrial

capitalism were directed at the workers from the West Indies and Indian

subcontinent brought in to fill postwar labour shortages, the racism of

postindustrial capitalism is being directed at new migrants who find

themselves providing the manpower for ever more flexible labour markets,

and at ‘settled’ migrants who have been forced into the twilight worlds of

the service economy. It is a racism where the poor and poorer still are left to

fight it out over deregulated employment, as social protections are steadily

eroded.”

(Burnett, 2013)

2.5 The circumstances and needs of migrants differ greatly from one individual

to the next, dependent on their personal circumstances and their reasons for

migrating. Many immigrants settle in areas experiencing significant poverty.

Immigrant parents often work long hours to make ends meet which makes it

difficult for them to monitor their children’s progress and activities.

Immigrants experience a number of stressors, including stress related to

exclusion experienced in the host country, poverty and separation from

families (MENTOR, 2009b). Children’s acculturation tends to be more rapid

than that of their parents and this can lead to a divide between the

generations.

2.6 For Roma people, discrimination and practices such as forced settlement and

school segregation remain widespread in counties across Central and

Eastern Europe (Amnesty International, 2007). This treatment has left a

legacy of disengagement with education, suspicion and mistrust of authority

and a belief amongst many young Roma that they cannot succeed or change

their circumstances.



8

3 The effectiveness and outcomes of

mentoring

3.1 During the past decade, mentoring has become increasingly common as a

social intervention aimed at improving the life chances of disadvantaged

people in the absence of positive role models. It is also widely used in

professional contexts as a way for senior professionals to advice junior staff

along their career path. There is evidence to suggest that mentoring can

benefit people in some contexts in different ways. However, the evidence to

support how far it can achieve hard outcomes such as gaining employment

and reducing recidivism remains inconclusive6.

3.2 It is not appropriate to ask in broad terms ‘does mentoring work?’ because

mentoring can be defined in a number of ways according to the context. It

involves a number of variables, such as the characteristics of the target

group, characteristics of the mentor, length of relationship, duration of

sessions, what characteristics the mentoring match is based on, which

activities are undertaken, the geographical and political context and whether

or not there is adequate supervision from the coordinating organisation.

Findings from the MOMIE evidence review

3.3 The MOMIE evidence review (Finnegan et al, 2010) outlined findings from a

number of studies which provided some promising evidence of the potential

for mentoring to contribute to a number of outcomes.

3.4 Positive effects shown by some of the research literature included:

Positive effects on intermediate outcomes, such as mental health,

which may in turn have a positive effect on outcomes such as

recidivism.

Improvements in mentee attitude and behaviour.

Improvements in interpersonal relationships and integration into the

community.

6 Portuguese outcomes on MOMIE and on MEGAN, reveal that there is a positive correlation between mentoring (along with other complementary interventions) and employment.



9

Some reductions in recidivism

Some improvements in academic achievement and integration into

education and training.

3.5 However, the evidence was very mixed. The positive results from studies on

mentoring were often not consistent or statistically significant (Lipsey et al,

2000, Joliffe and Farrington, 2007). Many of the studies reviewed reported

no significant impact on the outcomes noted above, including recidivism, or

on intermediate outcomes such as attitudinal improvements, or increases in

levels of numeracy or literacy.

3.6 In addition, although the literature as whole suggested mentoring can have

a positive effect on a number of outcomes, many findings had to be treated

with a significant degree of caution due to methodological limitations (Tolan

et al, 2008, DuBois et al, 2002).

The latest findings on the effectiveness and

outcomes of mentoring

3.7 A rapid evidence assessment of the intermediate outcomes of mentoring

interventions for NOMS (Taylor et al, 2013) sought to assess the effect of

mentoring on reoffending and identify intermediate outcomes from

mentoring projects. This research reviewed 23 studies in total and identified

a number of studies that had found some statistically significant impacts of

programmes involving mentoring on reoffending. Overall, the effectiveness

of mentoring on reducing reoffending was not conclusive from the evidence

available, but was instead described as “mixed/promising”.

3.8 Taylor et al (2013) also identified a number of intermediate outcomes which

some mentoring programmes have been associated with, though the level of

evidence in support of each varied. These intermediate outcomes were:

An improvement in employment outcomes.

Increased participation in other programmes and interventions

designed to reduce reoffending and encourage desistance.

Improvements in housing situations.

Improvement in health outcomes, especially reduced substance

misuse.



10

Attitudinal, cognitive or motivational change, including positive changes

in coping and other psychological skills and improvements in attitudes

and thinking patterns.

Improvements in family and community relationships.

3.9 The findings of a meta-analysis of 73 independent evaluations of youth

mentoring programmes by DuBois et al (2011) support the effectiveness of

mentoring for improving academic, social, behavioural and emotional

outcomes. The analysis also found that mentoring has the ability to both

create positive outcomes and prevent negative outcomes. The research also

found evidence that mentoring is able to produce positive outcomes across

multiple domains simultaneously.

3.10 A literature review by KPMG (2013) concluded that mentoring can have a

positive and lasting effect on young people. The collective findings of the

literature reviewed in the report suggested that youth mentoring can provide

benefits including:

Increased social inclusion.

Improved relationships with peers and parents.

Improved health outcomes, including improved mental health and

reduced substance misuse.

Decreased youth violence.

3.11 A number of other evaluations of individual mentoring programmes also

provide support for the effectiveness of mentoring. For example, the Mosaic

mentoring programme for BME youth in the UK was felt to lead to subjective

improvements in mentees’ aspirations for the future, confidence, and

general happiness and sense of wellbeing (Bartlett, 2012). A mentoring

programme for indigenous youth in Australia was found to lead to a number

of positive outcomes in the areas of education, employment, health and pro-

social behaviours, including improved mentee resilience, aspirations and

engagement (Harwood et al, 2013). This same programme was also found

to generate $7 in benefits for every $1 in cost (KPMG, 2013). A mentoring

project for refugee women in Australia was found to increase mentees’

confidence and independence (Bond, 2010). In a Youth Initiated Mentoring

programme in the US, analysis by Schwartz et al (2012) found that

participants who were in contact with their mentors at the 38 month follow

up showed significant benefits compared to the control group on academic,



11

vocational and behavioural outcomes. The only outcome with no effect was

substance misuse. The results also suggested that mentors provided

valuable social and emotional support and guidance that was instrumental to

mentees improved success. In addition, a recent survey in the US (Bruce

and Bridgeland, 2014) found that young people with mentors were more

likely to report engaging in positive behaviour and believed that mentoring

helped them stay on track and make good choices.

3.12 Echoing the conclusions of the 2010 MOMIE review, both Taylor et al (2013)

and DuBois et al (2011) highlighted a number of reasons why the findings

on mentoring effectiveness and outcome need to be treated cautiously:

Gains on outcomes measures for the typical mentee in mentoring

programmes has been modest.

Mentoring evaluations do not typically look at the long-term outcomes

of programmes, or whether the immediate benefits are sustained, and

so the durability of mentoring effects remains largely unknown.

There is limited robust research evidence on the impact of mentoring

programmes with some groups, including offenders and migrants.

Many mentoring evaluations have failed to assess several key

outcomes of policy interest, including youth offending.

As mentoring can take so many forms, and indeed is often tailored to

mentees’ needs and therefore differs on an individual basis, it is

difficult to systematically capture outcomes and aggregate the

evidence.

3.13 The researchers do however conclude that there is value in continued

support for mentoring programmes, particularly when there is a desire to

promote outcomes across multiple domains.



12

4 Important factors and conditions

for effective mentoring

4.1 The MOMIE evidence review (Finnegan et al, 2010) found that the available

literature did give a strong lead on what was needed for an effective

mentoring initiative. The MOMIE evidence review outlined a number of

important factors for an effective mentoring relationship. This section will

summarise the previous review’s findings by theme, alongside a

consideration of the latest research findings.

Characteristics of mentees

4.2 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:

Targeting people 'at risk' rather than people who are already

demonstrating significant personal problems.

Enthusiasm and a willingness to take part.

4.3 The meta-analysis of 73 youth mentoring programmes by DuBois et al

(2011) found that programmes have been more effective when they have

targeted youth from high-risk backgrounds.

Characteristics of mentors


Using people who have had experience in helping roles as mentors.

Ability to model relevant behaviours.

4.5 Using mentors who have ‘been there, done that’ was identified as a success

factors in the KPMG (2013) literature review. In addition, an evaluation of a

mentoring programme for BME youth in the UK (Bartlett, 2012) found that

the longer an individual had been a mentor the better the improvements in

outcomes for the mentee.

4.6 Recruiting mentors who are considered ‘successful’ may also be helpful.

Bartlett (2012) found that having a mentor who the mentee viewed as



13

successful had a strong impact on the mentees’ confidence in finding a job

and achieving in life.

4.7 It is also important to ensure that there is a good fit between the

backgrounds of the mentors and the goals of the programme (DuBois et al,

2011). Ensuring that the expectations of mentors are also a match for the

programme is important for limiting mentor ‘burn-out’ or fatigue which can

cause high drop-out levels from mentoring programmes which is bad for

both mentor and mentee (Bartlett, 2012).

Mentor and mentee matching


Matching mentors and mentees on the basis of background and

experience.

4.9 The meta-analysis by DuBois et al (2011) confirmed the important of

mentors and mentees being paired based on similarity of interests. A good

match between mentor and mentee was also found to be a success factor in

Bartlett’s (2012) evaluation of a BME youth mentoring programme.

4.10 Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is a new approach to mentoring in which

the youth nominate mentors from the non-parental adults in their social

networks, for example extended family, teachers or family friends. The YIM

model is borne from evidence suggesting that natural mentoring

relationships, where the mentor is from the youth’s existing social network,

are more durable. These mentees are likely to be closer connected to the

youth’s cultural backgrounds, reflecting evidence that suggests when

mentees are given a choice they choose mentors from similar backgrounds

to themselves. Using data from a national randomized evaluation of the

National Guard Youth Challenge Programme, a USA programme for youths

who have dropped out of high school, and qualitative data from study

participants, Schwartz et al (2012) examined how YIM relationships relate to

youth outcomes. Findings showed positive outcomes for mentees in YIM

mentoring relationships. Mentees who chose mentors on their own were also

more likely to have an enduring relationship, and same race mentee-mentor

relationships were longer-lasting.

4.11 Matching by gender does not seem to be critical however. Kanchewa et al

(2014) conducted a secondary analysis of two surveys, the Department of

Education’s Student Mentoring Program and the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of



14

America’s School-based Mentoring. They found that, generally, same-sex

versus cross gender mentor-mentee relationships for male mentees made

little difference to outcomes. This finding supports a number of analyses that

find neither mentor nor mentee gender, nor matching by gender

systematically relate to programme outcomes and impacts (for example,

DuBois et al, 2011).

Support, training and supervision for mentors


Having a strong support system in place for the mentoring scheme.

4.13 An Australian pilot mentoring programme for refugee women (Bond, 2010)

identified a number of ways in which supporting and training mentors could

be developed. Having a coordinator charged with recruitment, training and

support of mentors was considered important. Also felt to be of value was

offering accredited training modules, in addition to basic training, to enable

mentor upskilling in areas appropriate to the needs of their match, for

example home English tutoring. Strengthening mentor support by providing

regular reporting and supervision opportunities and including a feedback

mechanism in the mentor exit process were also identified.

4.14 It is important to ensure that involvement in mentoring provides positive

benefits for mentors and development of personal and professional skills is

one way to provide benefits (Bartlett, 2012).

Goal setting


Ensuring compatibility between the mentee and mentor’s goals for the

relationship.

Jointly agreeing goals.

4.16 Setting realistic and achievable goals with mentees was one of the critical

success factors identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young

Roma in the UK (Eustance, 2009). Likewise, clearly defined goals and

objectives was found to be a success factor in a BME youth mentoring

programme (Bartlett, 2012).



15

4.17 A balance may be needed. Karcher and Nakkula (2010) outline two

approaches to mentoring: goal directed and relational, and two relationship

styles: developmental (which includes both goal directed and relational

interactions) and instrumental (which is predominantly goal-directed). They

suggest that a pattern of mentoring interactions that either lack any

articulated goals or focus exclusively on goals and skill development can

result in quite ineffective mentoring.

4.18 The KPMG (2013) literature review found that setting too many goals can

cause the mentee to become discouraged and give up.

Mentoring duration and intensity


Long-term mentoring relationships of a year or more

Frequent contact of once a week or more.

4.20 In Schwartz et al's (2013) research on Youth Initiated Mentoring

programmes, improved outcomes were not seen in participants where

relationships lasted under 21 months, suggesting enduring mentoring

relationships are key to developing positive outcomes.

4.21 A good quality UK study also found that mentoring for offenders is most

likely to be effective when the relationship is maintained over time rather

than consisting of just one or two sessions. Maguire et al (2010) found that

participants in a mentoring scheme in Wales who received between two and

six contacts after release were reconvicted at a significantly lower rate than

a (broadly matched) control group of those who did not maintain contact.

4.22 In the KPMG (2013) literature review, long-term mentoring relationships of

at least 12-18 months and consistent regular contact between mentor and

mentee were identified as success factors.

4.23 In Bartlett’s (2012) evaluation of a mentoring programme for BME youth,

mentoring for more hours was reported to increase mentees’ motivation,

confidence and skills.

4.24 The US youth mentoring survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) also

confirmed that the longer the mentoring relationship, the greater the value.

The survey found that youth satisfaction with mentoring doubled when

comparing mentoring relationships of more than a year to less than a year.



16

In addition, young people with longer mentoring relationships reported

better outcomes.

Mentoring relationship


Setting clear boundaries between mentor and mentee.

Ensuring the mentor retains authority and professionalism.

4.26 The findings of Larose et al (2010) suggest that more directive behaviours

are beneficial to youth, as long as there is a balance between emotional

engagement and control. However, directive behaviours may vary according

the mentees circumstances, and the stage of the relationship. They suggest

that a directive start to the relationship may help to identify the motivations

and expectations of mentees, and possibilities and limitations to the

relationship.

4.27 In assessing four mentoring studies, Keller and Pryce (2010) found that the

most rewarding relationship for mentees, and the most successful

relationship in terms of outcomes, was where the mentor balanced youth-

focused efforts to build a relationship with adult-oriented activities to

encourage development. This ‘hybrid’ model allowed the mentor to manage

the voluntary aspect of the relationship as well as use the power imbalance

to support development. The research suggested that a relationship based

predominantly on one of these two aspects is less successful.

4.28 The literature review by KPMG (2013) found that the mentoring relationships

should involve mutual respect, genuine friendship and a non-judgemental

and non-authoritarian approach. ‘Mentors adopting an attitude of

unconditional positive regard towards mentees’ was one of the critical

success factors identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young

Roma in the UK (Eustance, 2009).

4.29 The US youth mentoring survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) found that

structured and informal mentoring relationships could provide different but

complementary benefits. Structured mentoring relationships tended to

provide more academic and employment-related support. Informal

mentoring relationships tended to support personal development.



17

4.30 The meta-analysis of youth mentoring programmes by DuBois et al (2011)

found that one-to-one mentoring relationships and group mentoring

relationships showed comparable levels of effectiveness.

The structure of mentoring programmes


The presence of structured activities for mentors and mentees.

Building positive relationships through working together on activities or

joint-decision making.

4.32 Given such a wide variety of experiences possible in a mentor-mentee

relationship, Larose et al (2010) attempted to determine whether mentoring

programmes should foster a specific type of experience to develop mentees.

Whilst their research related to an academic setting through their analysis of

the MIRES (Mentoring for the Integration and Success of Science Students)

programme, the findings offer useful recommendations regarding the

structure of mentoring programmes. They advocated using structured,

meaningful activities which may vary by the needs expressed by the youth:

activities must strongly reflect the developmental needs of their clientele.

4.33 Deploying mentoring models flexibly and tailoring these to individual

mentees appears important: applying different mentoring techniques

according to individual needs was one of the critical success factors

identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young Roma in the UK

(Eustance, 2009).

Integration of mentoring with other support


Using mentoring as a component within a wider programme of support

for those at risk.

4.35 Effective multi-agency collaboration and relationship building with statutory

agencies and professionals was one of the critical success factors identified

in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young Roma in the UK

(Eustance, 2009).



18

4.36 In a meta-analysis looking at the effects of youth mentoring on mentee

outcomes, Eby et al (2008) found some evidence to suggest that mentoring

of ‘at risk’ youths has greatest effects when accompanied by other support

services. Likewise, having strong partnerships between the mentoring

programme and other services in the area was also identified as good

practice in the KPMG (2013) literature review. The US youth mentoring

survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) also provided support for the value of

integration.

4.37 From a criminal justice perspective the evidence suggests that mentoring

may be most beneficial when it begins in prison and lasts beyond release

(Clancy et al, 2006).



19

5 Conclusions and

recommendations

5.1 This refresh of the evidence has found that the conclusions and

recommendations made in the MOMIE Review (Finnegan et al, 2010) stand.

Challenges with the research on the effectiveness and outcomes of

mentoring remain, but the available evidence base does suggest that there

is value in continuing to support mentoring programmes for vulnerable

groups.

Recommendations for mentoring

5.2 Ensure that mentoring programmes are designed to take account of

research findings on effective mentoring programme features, including the

need to match mentors and mentees on the basis of background and

interests, the need for mentoring to last for more than 12 months and

involve regular contact, and the need to integrate mentoring with other

support.

5.3 Aim to identify and monitor a suite of intermediate outcomes alongside the

key outcome(s). For example, employment, participation in other

programmes, housing and health outcomes are valuable intermediate

outcomes for a mentoring programme with an overall aim of reducing

reoffending.

5.4 Consider soft outcomes alongside hard outcomes. Soft outcomes may be

more achievable in the short term and are an important form of success in

their own right. For example, development of soft skills, higher aspirations

and a greater sense of personal agency.

5.5 Use quality standards to ensure all structured mentoring is quality

mentoring.

5.6 Ensure that there is a positive benefit to participation in mentoring

programmes for the mentor as well as the mentee, for example, through

offering skill development opportunities.



20

5.7 Explore innovations, including group mentoring and technology, which may

have the potential to dramatically increase the supply of mentors and close

the mentoring gap.

5.8 Facilitate more connections between mentoring research and practice and

utilise evaluation methods that will address current research gaps, such as

longitudinal studies to assess long-term outcomes from mentoring.



21

References

Amnesty International (2007) Slovakia: Still Separate, Still Unequal. Violations of the

Rights to Education of Romani Children in Slovakia.

Bartlett, J. (2012) A model role: evaluation of mosaic mentoring programmes.

London: Demos.

Bond, S. (2010) Women on the Move: Evaluating a refugee mentoring pilot project.

Victoria, Australia: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Bruce, M. and Bridgeland, J. (2014) The Mentoring Effect: Young People’s

Perspectives on the Outcomes and Availability of Mentoring. Boston: National

Mentoring Partnership.

Burnett, J. (2013) Britain: racial violence and the politics of hate. Race and Class,

Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 5-21.

Clancy, A., Hudson, K., Maguire, M., Peake, R., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M. and Kynch,

J. (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out: Results of the Prisoner Resettlement

Pathfinders. Bristol: Policy Press.

DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C. and Cooper H. (2002) Effectiveness of

mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. American Journal of

Community Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 157-197.

DuBois, D.L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J.E., Silverthorn, N. and Valentine, J.C. (2011)

How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the

Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 57-91.

Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, C.S, Ng, T. and DuBois, D.L. (2008). Does mentoring

matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored

individuals. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 72, pp. 254-267.

Eustance, C. (2009) Roma Metoring Project: Evaluation Report. London: Roma

Support Group.

Finnegan, L., Whitehurst, D. and Deaton, S. (2010) Models of mentoring for

inclusion and employment: Thematic review of existing evidence on mentoring and

peer mentoring. London: MOMIE/Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion.



22

Harwood, V., O'Shea, S., Clapham, K., Wright, J., Kervin, L., Humphry, N., McMahon,

S., Hogan, M. and Bodkin-Andrews, G. (2013) Evaluation of the AIME Outreach

Program: Final Report. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong,

Wollongong, Australia.

Jolliffe, D. and Farrington, D.P. (2007) A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of

mentoring on re-offending: a summary. London: Home Office.

Kanchewa, S.S., Rhodes, J.E., Schwartz, S.E.O. and Olsho, L.E.W. (2014). An

Investigation of Same- versus Cross-gender Matching for Boys in Formal School-

based Mentoring Programs. Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 18, No, 1, pp. 31-

45.

Karcher, M.J. and Nakkula, M.J. (2010). Youth mentoring with a balanced focus,

shared purpose, and collaborative interactions. New Directions for Youth

Development, No. 126, pp.13-32.

Keller, T.E. and Pryce, J.M. (2010) Mutual but unequal: Mentoring as a hybrid of

familiar relationship roles. New Directions for Youth Development, No.126, pp. 33-

50.

KPMG (2013) Economic Evaluation of the Australian Indigenous Mentoring

Experience Program: Final report. Australian Government Advisory Services.

Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Brodeur, P. and Tarabulsy, G.M. (2010). The

structure of effective academic mentoring in late adolescence. New Directions for

Youth Development, No. 126, pp. 89-105.

Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B. and Cothern, L. (2000) Effective intervention for serious

juvenile offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Bulletin,

April Edition.

Maguire, M., Holloway, K., Liddle, M., Gordon, F., Gray, P., Smith, A. and Wright, S.

(2010) Evaluation of the Transitional Support Scheme (TSS): Final Report to the

Welsh Assembly Government. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

MENTOR (2009a) Elements of effective practice for mentoring: third edition. Virginia:

National Mentoring Partnership.

MENTOR (2009b) Mentoring immigrant and refugee youth: a toolkit for program

coordinators. Virginia: National Mentoring Partnership.

NACRO (2010) Foreign national offenders, mental health and the criminal justice

system: a Nacro mental health briefing paper. London: Nacro Mental Health Unit.



23

Schwartz, S.E.O., Rhodes, J.E., Spencer, R. and Grossman, J.B. (2013) Youth

Initiated Mentoring: Investigating a New Approach to Working with Vulnerable

Adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 155–169.

Taylor, J., Burrowes, N., Disley, E., Liddle, M., Maguire, M., Rubin, J. and Wright, S.

(2013) Intermediate outcomes of mentoring interventions: a rapid evidence

assessment. London: National Offender Management Service.

Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M. and Bass, A. (2008) Mentoring interventions to

affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Oslo: The Campbell

Collaboration.



24

Appendix – Research Protocol

Review of academic databases

We searched for peer-reviewed academic research on databases using the London

School of Economic Science Summon function, as well as wider searches on

databases of electronic journals such as the International Bibliography of the Social

Science and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. Relevant papers from the MOMIE project

were also included.

The criteria used to identify relevant research was English language studies which

investigated the impacts of mentoring on mentors and mentees, specifically in

regard to minority groups. International research was sought, though the searches

were restricted to research published in English. The predominance of UK, US and

Australian mentoring scheme research in this review is a reflection of where the

majority of the research has been produced and not due to the search being

restricted to these countries. As the MOMIE review was conducted in 2010, the

search was originally limited to research published from 2010 onwards, but later

widened to research published from 2005 onwards in recognition of the wider focus

of this review.

With such a wide scope, papers that included a literature review or systematic

review approach were initially sought to rapidly assess the current state of the peer-

reviewed literature. Where the literature review of systematic review was considered

robust, additional qualitative research was used to add to the understanding of the

impacts (particularly those that cannot be easily quantitatively measured).

The search for articles and reports began by using each first term with each second

term.

First Term Second Term

Mentor* Minority

Migrant

Social* Exclu*

Impact

Outcomes

Review

Meta*

Cost



25

The search did not yield a large number of relevant studies when more than one

search term was used, as the subject matter was quite specific. Whilst articles on

mentoring could be found, the target groups were varied and often included

workplace mentoring, which was irrelevant for the MEGAN context. Specific papers

regarding the impacts of mentoring on excluded or minority groups were sparse, and

mainly focused on academic contexts (for example with excluded pupils) in the USA.

Nonetheless, the identified abstracts were sifted on the basis of the following

questions:

Does the abstract address the research question(s)?

Is the paper based on a primary study examining the effectiveness of peer and

non-peer mentoring?

Does the study use transparent, appropriate and robust methods?

If the answer to these questions was ‘yes’ then the full paper was reviewed.

A review template is provided below. We used this template to record relevant

information for each of the studies identified in the review, regardless of how the

study was identified. Two reviewers reviewed articles for this literature review and

saved the templates in the same location. An evidence review list was compiled to

keep track of which articles were being reviewed by whom and a note of how

relevant an article was to make it easy to extract material from each article.

Review of grey literature

Not all relevant evidence-based literature relevant to mentoring may have been

published in academic journals or papers. We therefore searched the websites of

the following organisations:

UK Government Publications (www.gov.uk/government/publications)

Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (www.mandbf.org)

Center for Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research (www.pdx.edu/mentoring-

research)

Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring (www.umbmentoring.org)

We restricted our search of these websites to evidence-based literature and

evaluations, rather than case studies of projects which had not been evaluated.

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications

http://www.mandbf.org/

http://www.pdx.edu/mentoring-research

http://www.pdx.edu/mentoring-research

http://www.umbmentoring.org/



26

Literature Summary Template

Publication Date:

Full reference:

Author interest in

subject:

(i.e. independent

evaluator,

government dept etc)

Geographical

scope:

Published

location/ journal:

Research aims:

Research methodology: * method;

* treatment and

comparison group;

* primary or

secondary;

* quantitative or

qualitative;

* sample size and

how the sample

selected;

* response rates.

Summary of

article:

(include any country-

specific details/

factors that may limit

comparisons to UK)

Relevant Findings:

(include page

numbers for data and

quotes)

Relevant

Recommendations:

Name of reviewer: Date Reviewed:

evaluation of the mentoring for excluded groups and networks …stats.learningandwork.org.uk/megan...

Documents